Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Edit this section for new requests

add new reports to the top of the section

User:Tobias Conradi

The user page of this user is probably in violation of an arbcom ruling which applies to them: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Laundry_lists_of_grievances which states that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances". This page contains a list of the users grievances with the Arbcom decision, in violation of their ruling. It is probably also in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, since the user is using it as a page advocating his right to maintain lists of accusations against admins. (ShivaIdol 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Administrator response: maybe so, but this is being handled at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination), where current consensus looks to be veering towards keeping. We should let the MfD play out, no reason to cut it short. Picaroon (Talk) 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:FreedomAintFree

This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatinepermabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows'WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Hinnen, he claims he's been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful Please investigate. 64.145.158.163 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Bryan to me. He is obviously somebody's sockpuppet, based on how well he knows his way around (take a look at that very first edit summary), and Bryan is the most likely possibility. I'll block it soon unless anybody pops up with a counter-argument as to why this is surely not him. By the way, which is your main account? Picaroon (Talk) 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Ryulong. And who knows who the above anon really is, I doubt it's FaAfA. --MichaelLinnear 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik

Tajik (talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [1] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [2] Despite that, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other artcles under anonymous IPs and sock accounts. The checkuser request that I filed confirms that the suspicious accounts indeed belong to User:Tajik, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. --Grandmaster 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get better response at ANI. Or better yet, ask the checkuser b'cat or admin clerk to ban or original banning admin. But since arbcom is not done, they may not get to it here (or worse, wait a few days and reject it). Clearing arbcom enforcement requests, quite surprisingly, seems slow and somewhat arbitrary. --Tbeatty 05:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I informed the banning admin, and I will probably post this at ANI as well. Is there any way I can make the arbitrators aware of this checkuser result? Grandmaster 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence page. They also have a mailing list. Contact the clerk if all else fails. --Tbeatty 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I also posted this to ANI. Grandmaster 07:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seabhcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) violating NPA parole

Here he calls an editor dishonest and purposely misconstrues his name. This is exactly what he was admonished for in the ArbCom ruling. Logs of the enforcement should be logged here. He is on parole for a reason and he seems to be spiraling more and more out of control. This and this were two almost identical attacks cited by ArbCom. --Tbeatty 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment. I have left a message on Sebhcan's talk page asking him to comment. Bucketsofg 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seabhcan comment. Morton is dishonest - he rubbishes a book he hasn't read. (And the Morty/Monty thing is a simple silly typing mistake. Tbeatty is disingenuous making such a fuss over it). ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin decision. Given that User:Seabhcan has chosen this very venue to violate his probation by calling another user dishonest, I block him for 24 hours. (I will file this at the appropriate place in the arbcomm decision.) Bucketsofg 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the Morty/Monty "it was just a typo" excuse was also used in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was one of the examples I pointed to above. The new edits are almost identical edits to the ones cited by Arbcom as egregious. These were the comments cited in the arbcom decision. [3] [4] --Tbeatty 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to warn Seabhcan to refrain from violating his personal attack parole. Watch the typos, use the preview button. If this matter comes up again, we will be looking at blocks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist 2 (Redux)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This case has just been archived here, but has not been resolved, where I noted that ScienceApologist had not been building consensus with other editors. It followed on from an incident mentioned here where ScienceApologist was "strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language", and yet continued to do so during this incident.

I would also appreciate being addressed, the observation that ScienceApologist has "been given leeway" over other editors --Iantresman 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin response

(Admins only below this line, please.) First, I note that this request is mistitled. It is not ScienceApologist 2, but ScienceApologist 7. (SA 5 is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive4.) Looking over the new complaint, I see nothing that warrants anything more than a caution, which SA has already received. In an earlier complaint (archived here), after spending about 20 hours looking over diffs of the involved parties, I expressed concerns that the repeated filings of User:Iantresman here were close to vexatious litigation. I also note that since then an appeal to ArbComm about that ruling was rejected and admin actions (including my own) were endorsed [5]. Moreover, I again here state my concern that vexatious filings such as this one are tendentious and disruptive and may in fact be a violation of Ian's probation. I welcome further admin comments, but otherwise regard this matter as closed. Bucketsofg 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's response

(Admins may respond above and below this line). Bucketsofg, your response is a disgrace. It reminds me of the 1970s, when women complained to the police that their partners were beating them up, the police charged the women with wasting police time.
To suggest that my complaints are "vexatious " is to assume that they have no foundation. When my original complaint went to Arbitration, [6], ScienceApologist was found to be uncivil towards me. When I recently complained again, [7], I note SEVERAL other incidences, and ScienceApologist was caution, as I mentioned above.
If I was uncivil to you, how many times would I get away with it, before you banned me? And yet ScienceApologist gets caution, after caution, after caution. How many cautions can an editor receive?
And the irony is that now you are prepared to beat me up over having the audacity to bring it to the attention of those who are supposed to be "policing" Wikipedia.
Bucketsofg, do I need to remind you that (a) civility, and (b) building consensus are key Wikipedia policies. You are surely not suggesting that reporting them is (a) justification for ignoring them, (b) an infraction of policy?
And you are surely not suggesting that a rejected ArbCom appeal has any specific relevance to this issue?
And when you say "close to vexatious litigation", do you mean like "close to being pregnant"?
Why was it observed that ScienceApologist was "being given leeway"?
Why does ScienceApologist not have to build consensus with other editors?
Why does ScienceApologist not have to observer the policy of civility? --Iantresman 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response. Thank-you for sharing your concerns, which are now on record if there are any further problems. Unless some other admin has something to add, this matter is now closed. Bucketsofg 11:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not merely "concerns" as you put. There is a "due process" required from adminstrators. Please give me the common courtesy of responding my "concerns".
Please confirm that (a) there is no defense or justification for incivility (b) after reporting my concerns of further incivility, "ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language"[8] (presumably incivility)
Under the circumstance, how does policy view ScienceApologist's subsequent description of me as "paranoid"[9], and his use of language ("bullsh.t")[10],?

Final admin response. This matter is now closed. Bucketsofg 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin Zero0000

1. Admin Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was advised by ArbCom and committed "not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. " [11].

Despite the ruling and his commitment to ArbCom (as well as previously on AN/I board) he overruled another admin action[12], [13] without discussing it with the admin involved and deleted - without review, without proper tag and without justification - an article I created. The deletion is an admin only action - he was not supose to take such action based on ArbCom rulling.

It also seems to be a violation of WP:AGF and violation of WP:NPA in edit summary[14].

2. Zero0000 (talk · contribs) has done that after I found that he misrepresented a source - please see bottom part of Talk:East_Jerusalem

All requests to address any of those issues did not got any response from user Zero000. Zeq 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Maybe this guy is not 24h a day on wikipedia.

Would you mind waiting for a few hours ?

Thank you

Alithien 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About East Jerusalem, I think you don't have this source, do you ?

If not I think you don't respect several wikipeadia principles. Alithien 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: SlimVirgin reverted my comments that I think are important to understand the case. Alithien 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alithien: I have a source which quote the source and Zero had pleanty of time to respond but he did not - which is by itself an admission. We are dealing here only with Zero0000 admin action the source isssue was just for clarification of the background. You want to discuss the source - please do so on the article talk page. Zeq 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeq,

You talked about the problem of East Jerusalem and so I answered.

And it is not because you focus on this that I don't have the right to claim my point of view that is Zero cannot be full time on wikipedia and you would just have had to wait for a little time.

As any gentleman would have done.

I think you make a mountain of nothing. Alithien 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Zero0000 seems to have gone against the text "Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq" with regards to that deletion. So, I hereby endorse it, albeit not the deletion summary. Zeq, if you would like to claim that it was a neutral article that was written in the best of faith, I would like to claim you aren't telling the truth. Picaroon (Talk) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Note that this isn't an "administrator response;" I'm just commenting as a random passerby.)[reply]

Picaroon9288: Your reponse is moot now. We are not dealing with the article. We are dealing here only with Zero0000 admin action. (PS: of course my edit, like all my edits is good faith and I will be glad to take the edit issue to a deletion review elsewhere but noy here) Zeq 04:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ArbCom ruling supposed to cripple Zero's ability to administrate in this manner, though? if an article is judged to be offensively racist, should it be left to sit untouched until someone can get around to it? How about a hypothetical...Zeq posts some egregious WP:BLP violation, Zero comes across it, what to do? Supposedly such things are to be obliterated immediately, but here's this imposed gag rule based upon who did the editing. The ArbCom ruling is being treated as if it were a "keep 1000 ft away" restraining order, which doesn't seem right. Tarc 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is in no way crippled: there are a thousand other administrators and a whole encyclopedia. "until someone can get around to it" is fine, slap a speedy tag, or even alert WP:ANI, and if it is so clearly worthy of speedy deletion, someone else with an unbiased eye will do it in a matter of minutes. What was the emergency here, anyway? Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy tag was indeed the way to go but Zero decided to take action himself instead of follow the most speedy process wikipedia has. Zeq 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was so urgent from your point of view, why didn't you ask another admin to recreate that article ?

I think you use this as a bad reason to harm Zero0000 rather than with the idea of working constructively for wikipedia.

Could you please remind us what was the article in question ? apes and pigs or something like that ?

Mr Zeq, who are you making fun of ? Read WP:POINT Alithien 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali: My actions are not at all the issue here. There is no urgency nither in creating, deleting or recreating the article. The only issue here is Zero's admin action. If you want to discuss the article itself we can start a deletion review and let the comunity voice it's view. Your accusation of me that I created the article as " bad reason to harm Zero0000" is worth only one reaction: Please appologize for a blant violation of WP:AGF. Clearly I did not invaited Zero to delete the article and even did not knew (initially) that he dleted it. Zero took all those descisions on his own. Zeq 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's actions should be an issue here as well. How is it that Zero is expected to take a 100% hands-off policy, but Zeq is allowed to post antagonistic queries in talk pages such as Talk:East_Jerusalem#Is_the_source_misrepresented_by_Zero_.3F, that were in he end found to be unjustified? There is a serious double-standard going along here, where we have two historically conflicting parties receiving unequal treatment. Tarc 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Zero has had to withstand Zeq's harassment againts him for 1 year now. And it seems it will never stop. Everybody is aware of that but nobody does anything. I honnestly wonder how contributors with the quality of Zero stay with us and don't leave to Citizendium. Alithien 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam_and_antisemitism describes this trope--nearly nearly 1400 years old--in a three paragraph section, and devotes a second section to the interpretation by scholars. Expanding the subject into an article of its own is feasible and legitimate. The most prominent Islamic website discusses the subject in seven pages, the use of this epitheton by contemporary Islam prompting 53000+ google hits. Properly dealt with, there's nothing wrong with that lemma. Its not up to Zero to define and enforce the loaded term Islamophobia, as he did in the deletion summary. A speedy would have been the proper process. --tickle me 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in few other forms it is well over 100,000: [15] Zeq 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the deleted article, but I'm at a loss to determine why Zero would have taken this decision upon himself despite the very clear and tightly-defined (Zeq only) ruling of the CommitteeProabivouac 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is fed up ? Alithien 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there are many other admins who would have been willing to deal with this article. Thatcher131 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so ?

Proabivouac didn't understand the reaction of Zero. I think it is easy to understand.

The fact he was wrong to react that way, -what you say-, everybody is aware, even Zero.

Hopefully, that was an advice, ...

But are all protagonists of this conflict aware that they don't react properly ?

And even more, due to the fact we all left it go without reaction during 1 year, we are all responsible.

Even if there are wikipedia rules, there is also a human being who has limits he can withstand... Alithien 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying his humanity. The question is whether he will be responsible with the tools.Proabivouac 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, no can deny it is normal he was fed up...

At the question to know if he is responsible or not, I would say no less than all those who still don't dare to fix Zeq's case who is the root of the matter.

Alithien 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to admin notes

"Zero0000 is advised not to take (...)"

All is written. It is an advice and for a "good" or a "bad" reason, he decided not to follow this. Given Zeq is sincerely interested by this article and is eager to fill in with good sources, all can be solved in "re-establishing" that article and reminding Zero not to take care any more about Zeq. Alithien 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's comments

I will also be on a wikipbrake for few days Zeq 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Zeq violates his probation."

I did not violated my probation. You may dispute the article content but that is not the issue here. Read the probation terms and find out for your self. In any case the issue here is Zero admin actions. The article was already reviwed by one admin who decided not to speedy delete it. Zero over-rulled that admin decision and took the action himself. There are process for what he did and should just have followed them - instead he took an admin action himself. Zeq 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

No. I did not violate anything. My actions are not the issue here. Zero'a admin action are the issue. discusion of the validity of the article does not belong here and we should conduct an AFD if you think the article should be deleted. Zeq 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"additionnal comment by Zeq"

It was not and I am not going to deabte the content of the article here. If you think the article is not appropriate -please conduct an orderly deletion review. The only issue here is Zero Admin behaviour and it seems that yet again you are going to reward his behaviour. I created an article in good faith. Don't pick on me just because I am in probation. there is nothing wrong in the article itself and the best thing is to create it and put it to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I will accept an AFD after everyone has an opportunity to see the article (no one can since it was speedy delete without due process)
Also note that since ArbCom had the opportunity ro review my edit, my probation etc...and decided on the action you should not now issue any bans that are not even in my probation. You are way over reaching your authority here. Zeq 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero clearly violated the trust this comunity is giving to admins. He broke a promise he himself gave to arbCom just few days earler. Zeq 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for ArbCom to decide, as they did not give admins any enforcement measures. Even if they did, all Admins can do is block or delete, and it would be inappropriate to block Zero's editing when it is his use of admin tools that is under consideration, and only ArbCom can remove them. You are invited to post a request for clarification on WP:RFAR or to contact the members of ArbCom by e-mail. Thatcher131 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero's response

Copied from [16]

Hello, Thank you for asking for my side of the story. I am going overseas and there's a good chance I won't be able to discuss this for about 10 days. I don't even have time left right now to read everything that has been said so far. I would much appreciate it if you could copy the following statement to the necessary place or places.

I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys" which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this "information", no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the "delete" button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews". When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty.

Thanks! --Zero^talk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments

I think it is clear that Zero has not responded as an admin should have. AS for his anger on the article. I am wiling to discuss it elsewhere about is the content anti-Islamic or filth or what ever he claim it to be. Proper response was to conduct a dletion review (especially after one admin alreday review the material and decided not to delete it.

Anyone who discuss the article just based on Zero's description or the name of the article is not doing the subject justice. The article should be reviwed nad looked upon in relation to other Wikipedia articles that have been pointed out to me since the original article was created. Zeq 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero admitted to have taken the wrong decision as he feels, among Nazi allegations, that Zeq should have attempted "at identifying the content as referring to an extreme fringe," which is clearly his OR on the topic. A speedy was warranted at best, to have others evaluate what is an edit conflict. Discussing action against Zeq without even knowing the content of his article except by Zero'S hate spewing summary is unjustified. Violating Godwin's law when defending oneself for having broken an arbcom decision--being an admin-- is appalling, that other admins don't mind is a sign of pc going way over the top. --tickle me 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Maybe admins want to take distance with this matter because they are disappointed that such a good contributor as Zero has been naievely "trapped", removing islamophobic prose without discussing ?

Alithien 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is outragous to hint that I "trapped" him. How could I know what he will do ? I just created an article with Good faith. An article that as it now turns out have similar (more or less) content to another article (I did not know about at the time) - so are you saying that those who created and editted that other article also "trapped" Zero ? Zeq 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq... Where did you read "you trapped him" ? It is written "he was trapped", isn't it ?

When studying Halakah these are nuances we are learned to take care about, aren't we ?

Zero was trapped because being an honnest and valuable contributor he deleted islamophobic prose never thinking he had to discuss his action...

I think indeed what has happend for one year on wikipedia is outrageous and the silence and passivity of witnesses, administrators and the Arbitration comittee is also outrageous.

yes, you are right : all this is outrageous. Alithien 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the community keeps being so patient and forgiving with Zero0000. This is clearly a person who time and again abuses his adminstrator power, bites new users, treats fellow wikipedians with condescending behaviour, abuses pop-up tools, uses his own WP:OR and feel every sourced material is one that has to go through his own approval, has no care at all for mediation techniques, ridicules Arbcom, does whatever he wants whenever he wants, and yet, is allowed to remained active in wikipedia. Strange. Amoruso 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why strange ?

Is there a complot ? An organisation working around him ?

Each time something happens, does he always come with the same 4-5 guys to attack lonely people ?

Is that so... or is this the contrary ?

Alithien 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded here to this false accusation - why is my reponse removed ??? Zeq 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was removed administratively. Maybe it was an edit conflict. Thatcher131 15:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it is outragous to make claims such as "intentionally tendentious" when one does not even see the content. And as it turned out such content is already in wkipedia in another article. Buck: Please restore the article and put it to AFD - I will vote to re-direct and merge it to the bigger article on the same subject. Zeq 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, why don't you ask to an admin to do so and why do you ask this here ?

This is hard to follow you because 20 200 lines above (your write much) you asked "only" the matter of Zero be discussed here.

I think you should not be offered compromise any more.

Just do it by yourself. point. Alithien 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I am able to see and did see the article in question and I will not recreate it. If you disagree with the deletion, you might try WP:DRV. In the meantime, I remind you very strongly about your probation and encourage you to seriously think about posting anything as controversial as this in the future because it can be interpreted as a breach of your probation. Bucketsofg 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There is nothing that prevent me from posting on "controvesial" subjects. Doing so can not and is not be a violation of my probation. But I want to thank you for writing this: It is now clear that you have went way beyond the terms of the probation. What I ask that you now do is recreate the article and put it under an AFD or speedy delete. I as non-admin can not even see the article (and I don't have a copy) . Please let's follow procedure instead of allowing zero's wrong action to hold. Thank You. Zeq 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you create a controversy, which by its nature is disruptive, and do so by tendentious editing you are in violation of your probation. That requires sanction. Zero's actions may require their own sanction (which may come from ArbComm), but that doesn't remove from the admins here the responsibility to consider whether you have violated your probation. Bucketsofg 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - "create a controversy" - since when has this become a violation of probation ? Please my last arbcom base. see what arbitors have said about controversial issues. It is not my job to interspret them I am sutre they can do it better than I can. In any case the issue is Good Faith and you should always WP:AGF. Any edit I make (or any edit any other editor makes) can create a controvesry. the issue is GF or not GF ? and if my edit was not good enough one can corect it or tag it for speedy or AFD. Zero did not do either of those. Instead he used his admin tools. Zeq 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption through tendentious editing is a violation. That's what your edits look like to me. Bucketsofg 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not argue with you any more about this: there was no tendatious editing . In fact what you are doing now is "tendatious editing". Go and read the arbCom case[17]. see what they say about conroverrsial subjects. I can not convince you if you are just stuck on this opinion that my probation give you some rights to ban me while only a week ago ArbCom reviwed all my edits over a year anddecided not too. Zeq 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom didn't review all your edits.

In reality, given Zero0000 and others want to contribute -only-, they let you polemicate, polemicate and polemicate on this ArbCom page (as you do here).

You hide behind rules and systetically play on nuances as if you were defending a point of view that would only be "borderline".

Alithien 06:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure is to list the article at deletion review. You may do this yourself. Thatcher131 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can I see the article first - can you e-mail it or post it to talk page ? sand box ? Zeq 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to see the contents of Apes and pigs. It's almost certainly an article that should be immediately deleted without any need to examine the subject or consider the author. It seems extraordinary to take aim at an admin who deletes it and not the editor who created it. If the article needs creating, then it should be carefully considered in talk first. Otherwise, we're opening the floodgates for 100s of really abusive phrases to appear. We have an entry for nigger - I would question whether that is necessary. The project certainly doesn't need large numbers of other highly offensive phrases added, which would quickly absorb an enormous amount of administrator time and effort for no good purpose. PalestineRemembered 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am always willing to discuss. Let's set-up a page specifically for this issue.

I would like to under stand what the difference is between:

1. a re-direct from Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid to:

2. a redirect from Pigs and Apes to [18]]

Both terminlogies makes an analogy about Israel(the first set of articles) and the Jews(the 2nd set).

Both are used to delitimize the right of the jewish people to have a home land in Israel.

Each is used based on the target audience:

When the target audience is Westren academic the nalagoy used is one that is more geared toward wetren ears.

When the target audience is in the Arab world the analaogy used is that rooted in Quranic versas.

Both of those are slurs directed at Jews/ Israelis and have a legitimate need to be identified as such in an enclopedic article.

The sources that were used in the deleted article are all quotes from Arab media. I still do not understand why Zero have deleted the article claiming islamophobia. Since when quotes of what is said about Jews in Arab media is "islmophobia" ? in any case ehre is another article to be considered along the same lines: House demolition Zeq 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you appear to claim, there are people deliberately linking the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" to "the Jews" (and presumably trying to have "the Jews" blamed for these real or imaginary policies of Israel), then the project has serious problems, and there is incitement to religious hatred going on.

However, that doesn't excuse us plunging in and doing the same thing to Muslims and the Koran, which I think an entry for Pigs and apes is liable to do (you are welcome to dispute this point if you think I have it wrong).

And there are two distinct reasons why we mustn't do it - the "moral" one I've attempted above .... but perhaps even more significantly, the "good of the project". Articles will be poisoned by this kind of linkage, and vast amounts of time will be spent pointlessly discussing this matter. There are topics and articles which belong in a box marked "Not needed on the voyage", and this is one of them.

I'm not sure I'm arguing "to existing policy" here (so it might be better to do it on another page), but if (as I presume we agree) we're not to credence to anti-semitic material then we must extend Islam the same protection. If there are any remaining cases where we simply cannot avoid publishing this kind of damaging material, then we should give it to Muslims or their apologists to write up as sympathetically as they can manage. I think that's what we see happening to attacks on other religions.

Re House demolition, there is no mention of "Jew" in the article and only one posting in the discussion does so (quotes an Israeli organisation). I'm not saying it's a good article (or balanced, I fail to understand why nobody has added the Nigerian cases), but it's clearly not written to "incite religious hatred" and has no reference whatsoever to scriptures/religious material.

(I've taken it you want there to be a genuine discussion of this, to which end I've tidied up the formatting of your post which was otherwise almost incomprehensible). PalestineRemembered 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all what I am saying. Please re-read my reply. The deligitimazation of the Jewish people right to have a home land is a form of antisemitism. Wether it is done by making analogies to Paes or to Apartheid regimne is just an issue of the target audiance. The target of both analogies is similar: to deny the homeland of Jewish people the right to exist as an independent country in the place it is today (i.e. Israel)
The fact that the word "jew" is not mentioned in House demolition still does not absolve the article from being a simple attack article. On the other hand the word "Jew" is clearly mentioned by all those who use the term "Apes and Pigs" so you are saying that only attacks in which the word Jew is not mentioned are encyclopedic ? Zeq 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin notes

Admin only below this line, please. Bucketsofg 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute:

Apes and Pigs is an article that about Islamic interpretations of the Quran that allegedly claim that the Jewish people are descendents of apes and pigs. Its only contributer was User:Zeq. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relevant ArbComm rulings

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000#Zero0000_admin_actions_against_Zeq

With regards to the remedy, "Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq", it seems that Zero0000 has not heeded this advice. The decision, however, gives no instructions for enforcement, and "advised" is the weakest of injunctions. Further action against Zero0000 should come from ArbComm itself. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Zeq_banned_from_articles_he_has_disrupted_and_placed_on_Probation

Zeq has probably violated his probation. According to the decision, "he may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting this thread on the proposed decision talkpage in the recent case. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brad. My first instinct is that this should be taken back to ArbComm. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First step should be to ask Zero0000 for a response, which I will do. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to shut it down for tonight and leave this in the hands of other admins. Bucketsofg 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that no action should be taken against Zero. He violated the "advisement" but said advisement is not enforceable. Against Zeq, I would strongly consider implementing a topical ban of some kind under his previous probation. Apes and pigs is about as appropriate as Coons and darkies would be, and we don't need to wait for a massive edit war when a user is on probation for previous disruptive behavior. Thatcher131 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have a suggestion as to what form a topical ban should take? Bucketsofg 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

It seems to me that Zeq's creation of this article was, given the editor's past tendencies, intentionally tendentious, provocative, and disruptive. Would banning him from creating articles be in order? Bucketsofg 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, we do indeed have an article Nigger, while Coon disambigs to Ethnic slur. Though I seriously question whether any articles about terms ought exist at all, I cannot see that the title Apes and Pigs surpasses Nigger in inherent offensiveness. In both cases, the aim is not to endorse the term, but to describe its use by third parties. Together with Zero's decription of the article as "Islamophobic," your analogy above may give viewers of this thread the very false impression that Zeq meant to label Muslims as "apes and pigs."

Having just seen the cached version of the article, I see nothing obviously offensive about it; one may as well say that Nigger anti-white. It's an unfortunate epithet which has been in use for over a millenium and is still in use today. How widespread this usage is might be debated on the talk page. Whether it's significant enough to warrant its own article might be debated at AfD. Judging only from the cached version I've seen, I can't see why it was speedied.Proabivouac 06:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. my response to this wrong comment was deleted from Here. Zeq 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that so far, no one had the common curtsey to place the article in a sand box or other place where it can be reviwed, modified and voted on as part of an AFD is a serious concern to me. Zero clearly acted wrong in deleting it but his action remains while tons of false accusations about me flourish. Zeq 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contested deletions are listed at WP:DRV for community review. Dmcdevit·t 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin responses

Admin response in regards to User:Zero0000. Admin Zero has clearly not heeded the advisement that he received inWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000 and admits as much. Given that this was an advisement only and that no enforcement mechanism exists, it is not the place of administrators here to punish him for his action. That he has ignored this ArbComm remedy so soon after it has been issued may be a matter that ArbComm itself will be interested in. (I welcome other admins' endorsement and/or reponse.) Bucketsofg 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for other arbitrators. Do you think that Zeq has violated his probation in this matter? Bucketsofg 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000's abuse of administrative tools, as noted in this AE report, was discussed on the ArbCom mailing list and a new motion is up for vote by ArbCom in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000 case. [19] FloNight 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this motion in general, but I'm afraid the ArbCOm is immensely lenient with Zero. He has abused his admin tools on mutiple occasions; this being only the most recent one. People usually see themselves desysoped after a much shorter record of abuse. Beit Or 12:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or, it does not matter now. He will not be able to abuse them any longer. It is as if he was desysoped, just they saved him the embarssment involved. Keep in mind that this is a person that "for various professional reasons is using a pseudonym" Zeq 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My god, can it be any more crystal clear that Zeq is purposefully baiting people with tendentious, antagonistic editing? The above response amounts to tacit admission of such. Tarc 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another baseless acuusation. what ever you have against my views there is a clear record that I edit in good faith. You may disagree with the content of my edit but don't violate WP:AGF. To think that I created article is part of some consipracy theory against Zero is ridiculus. How can anyone know who will observe which new article and what would be his/hers reaction to it. New articles are not on anyone watch list. Please appologize for your accusation against me: I have not purposly baited anyone. Zeq 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Pigsonthewing (mk II)

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has previously been banned for one year and also limited to one edit per article per week for a further year and remains under perminant probation (see WP:PROB). Under this clarification, it has been confirmed that his revert parole runs until 25th January 2008 (see the admin's response here), where it was also stated that as he was not warned and the revert parole was not clear, he would not be blocked on that occasion (regardless of the fact that the edits cited breached WP:3RR), but that he may be blocked in future.

He has now made two reverts to article Birmingham in a week. One of these was a "sneaky revert" to my mind, in that he waited on the second occasion for further changes to take place, and disguised it by also changing the clarification of the disambig header. These are:

14:40, 1 June 2007 - [20]
21:30, 3 June 2007 - [21] (revert of this edit, and very little happened in between)

L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone care about this user breaking revert parole or not? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also here[22], pushing his revert parole in a way frowned upon at WP:3RR - Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisskinner (talk • contribs)

Stale. Sorry, this looks to have gone stale. Blocking would not be called for for a 5 day old offense at this point. Future reports of 1RR parole violations can be made on the 3RR noticeboard; just remember to mention the parole and include a link to the case. Thatcher131 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK,fine. I now know where to report in future should it be necessary. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be clear that this is one of the appropriate places to make such a complaint, but the 3RR noticeboard usually gets much more prompt attention. Thatcher131 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]